HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46837 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Anil Kumar Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.293 of 2010 dated 13.11.2010 along with summoning order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau as well as entire proceeding of Case No.45 of 2011 (State Vs. Saiyyad Mohd. Aslam & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.1579 of 2010, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ghosi, District Mau. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of false and baseless allegations stating therein applicants, Saiyed Mohd. Aslam, Anwar and Mukhtar allegedly trespassed into his house, they break the lock and took away the original Nikahnama register, other documents, cash of Rs. 3,500/-, and certain gold and silver ornaments. It is further alleged that on 05.05.2010 and 20.05.2010, Saiyed Mohd. Aslam again abused and threatened opposite party No. 2 with dire consequences. The said application was allowed, and consequently, an FIR being Case Crime No.1579 of 2010 was registered under Sections 147, 457, 380, 504 and 506 IPC against the applicants and other persons. During the course of investigation, statements of opposite party No. 2 and other witnesses were Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devendra Kumar, G.A. Syed Mohd. Nasir And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) recorded, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was submitted against the applicants and two other persons. However, in his statement, opposite party No. 2 categorically stated that the alleged threats were given by Saiyed Mohd. Aslam, and no role in extending any threat has been attributed to the present applicants. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer did not conduct a proper and fair investigation and wrongly submitted a charge sheet against the present applicants. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicants vide order dated 20.1.2011. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the applicants and that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order without proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order and charge sheet are liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and contended that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that, at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed after due investigation and the material collected therein clearly discloses the commission of offences against the applicants. There is no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. As per the facts of this case, it transpires that opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., stating therein that the Nikah of Saiyed Mohd. Aslam with Firdaus was solemnized on 26.11.2008 with Haq Mehar of Rs. 51,000/-. It is further submitted that after some time, disputes arose between the husband and wife, and Firdus (wife) lodged an FIR against Saiyed Mohd. Aslam (husband), registered as Case Crime No.127 of 2009, under Sections 307, 323, 342, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 473 I.P.C. It is alleged that Saiyed Mohd. Aslam wants to show Firdaus as a tenant instead of wife. Due to the said dispute the accused Saiyed Mohd. Aslam along with four other persons came to the house of opposite party No.2 and demanded the original Nikahnama NA528 No. 46837 of 2025 2 register, however, upon refusal, the extended threats of dire consequences. Thereafter on 11.3.2010 the applicants, Saiyed Mohd. Aslam and two other accused persons break the lock of house of opposite party No.2 and took away the original Nikahnama register, other papers, cash of Rs,3.500/- and certain gold and silver ornaments. The opposite party No.2 on 28.5.2010 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the said incident, which was allowed, and consequently, an FIR being Case Crime No.1579 of 2010 was registered under Sections 147, 457, 380, 504 and 506 IPC against the applicants and other persons. During investigation, statements of opposite party No. 2 and other witnesses were recorded, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was submitted against the applicants and two other persons. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the charge sheet and the material brought on record summoned the applicants under vide order dated 20.1.2011. 6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 7. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has proceeded in accordance with law. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in passing the cognizance/summoning order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused. 8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. April 23, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 46837 of 2025 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad